<!-- end wide photo -->The truth about analytical methods is that once in a while you'll get a result that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom. When that happens, it means one of two things: (1) that the analytics saw something that everybody else couldn't see, or (2) that everybody else saw something the analytics couldn't see.

And in the case of two particular players in this year's NBA draft, it will be very interesting to find out the answer.

The draft is Thursday, June 25, and now that we know who's in and who's out, it's time to unveil this year's Draft Rater -- a statistical projection of the top NBA prospects coming out of the college ranks.

To review for the uninitiated, the Draft Rater looks at a player's college production in a variety of metrics and a few other salient facts (such as his height, birth date and years of college experience), and from that projects what a player's Player Efficiency Rating will be when he reaches his peak.

The basic idea is to use the NBA's past to predict its future. The Draft Rater looks back at prospects from past drafts and then, using regression analysis, identifies which attributes were determinants of pro success and which weren't.

My database of college players goes back to 2002 (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=DraftRater-History), which is still a bit limited, but with each year the rater is getting smarter because it has more information to work with -- not only an extra year of drafts, but an extra year of pro seasons from each of the prospects.

This year, several subtle changes helped reduce the error rate when back-tested on previous drafts. First, I ran a separate regression for each of the three position categories -- point guards, wings and bigs -- something that wasn't really feasible when I started doing this. But now that the pool of prospects is large enough, this method has produced greater accuracy.

Second, instead of tying the projection to a player's third-year PER, I used a more general descriptor of what his peak value was -- allowing me to minimize the impact of fluke seasons and better adjust for some players who entered the league young and didn't max out until their fourth or fifth season. (Some of these players will perform much better than projected, but keep in mind that it's all relative. For more on why the projections seem low, see this explanation (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=DraftRater-History).)

Using those changes, I was able to reduce the standard error in the projections from last year's 4.0 to this year's 2.8. This means nothing to 98 percent of you, but the number geeks in the crowd will recognize that this is still quite large -- as you might expect when you're trying to project what a 19-year-old will do when he's 25.

Nonetheless, it does represent a significant improvement from a year ago.

The one area where the method still appears to struggle is with one-and-done freshmen, and this speaks to a more general problem: Information is the key to making this thing work, and the more information we have, the better. For players who leave after their first year, the picture is often incomplete, whether we're using a statistical model or traditional scouting.

I bring this up because last year, in particular, was a rough one for the projection system. First, it was an unusual rookie class in general because nearly every player taken in the first round was at least somewhat productive; generally, a draft will have 10 to 12 impactful players and the rest will be filler, but this past season blew that standard away.

Moreover, a number of those players played only one college season, and while the rater had an accurate view of a few (such as Kevin Love (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3449) and Michael Beasley (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3418)), it missed the boat on some who performed extremely well (including Derrick Rose (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3456) to an extent, and O.J Mayo, Anthony Randolph (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3455) and Eric Gordon (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3431)).

Gordon is perhaps easier to understand because he was playing hurt at Indiana and his primary skill (shooting) didn't show through statistically, but that doesn't excuse the others.

One important thing to point out is that the Draft Rater is rating "pro potential," which is sometimes different from "pro performance," depending on the professionalism and work ethic of the player involved. In other words, the fact that Michael Sweetney (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2175) and Shawne Williams (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3038) rated very highly in previous seasons isn't necessarily a damnation of the system.

Rather, their off-court habits are the type of thing every general manager has to take into account when evaluating players, and something that is usually invisible when looking at their college performance.
That said, before last season the Draft Rater had performed extremely well.

From 2002 to 2007, there were 15 players who were (a) among the first 10 collegians drafted and (b) excluded from the top 12 by the Draft Rater. In other words, these were the college players the Draft Rater thought were drafted too high. Of those 15, not one has played in an All-Star Game.

The only two who have started a significant number of games over the long term have been Kirk Hinrich (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=1981) (who was 13th in the Draft Rater in 2003) and Charlie Villanueva (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2792).

In other words, when the Draft Rater has suggested avoiding a player, that's turned out to be good advice.
And the Draft Rater has also spotted some of the biggest steals in recent years:

• Carlos Boozer (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=1703) was the 26th collegian taken in 2002; Draft Rater had him second.
• Josh Howard (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2006) was 17th in 2003; Draft Rater had him fifth.
• Danny Granger (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2760) was the 13th collegian in 2005; Draft Rater had him third.
• Rajon Rondo (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3026) was the 16th collegian taken in 2006, but Draft Rater had him second.
• Rodney Stuckey (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3235) was the 14th collegian chosen in 2007; Draft Rater had him fifth.
• And last year, two players the Draft Rater had rated much higher than others did, Mario Chalmers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3419) and George Hill (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3438), had productive rookie seasons.

So, most of the time, when the Draft Rater puts a player in the top five, there's a good reason.

All of which leads us to 2009, and whom the Draft Rater likes and doesn't like.

This year, the Draft Rater is closer to the general draft consensus than usual, with two glaring exceptions that I referenced above.

Let's get to them:
The pleasant surprise: Ty Lawson (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19034)

There are two players who are neck-and-neck for the top spot in this year's Draft Rater. You could easily guess that one of them is Blake Griffin (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19213), but most folks never would have guessed that the other is Lawson.

Lawson, who is coming off an electric performance leading North Carolina to the championship, grades out highly for several reasons: Though he's short for a point guard, his shooting numbers (47.1 percent on 3-pointers), strong assist rate and microscopic turnover ratio (9.1, first among point guard prospects) all point to him as an NBA keeper.

The Draft Rater puts Lawson slightly ahead of Griffin for first, but this doesn't mean a team should take Lawson first -- the standard error in the projections for point guards is higher than it is for big men, which means random noise could be putting Lawson ahead just as easily as court performance. If the consensus is that Griffin is the better player, I don't think Lawson's statistical record alone is strong enough evidence to refute it. Additionally, we've heard questions about Lawson's work ethic and injuries.

But the rating is emphatic enough for me to say Lawson should be at the top of the college point guard ladder, ahead of Jonny Flynn (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19160), Jrue Holiday (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19263), Jeff Teague (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19334) and Co. (If you're wondering about Ricky Rubio (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19272), I'll have more on him next week.)
The unpleasant surprise: DeMar DeRozan (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19262)

I'd be hard-pressed to name a potential high lottery pick through the years that the Draft Rater has been less excited about. I rated 90 prospects for this draft, and DeRozan ranked 54th among them. Two of his teammates -- Daniel Hackett (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19216) and Taj Gibson (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19121) -- outranked him, as did assorted other non-entities like Kevin Rogers, Chinemelu Elonu (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19416) and Ben Woodside (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19372). I'll wait here while you Google them.

Why? Because there really isn't anything in DeRozan's statistical profile that makes you think "NBA star." He rarely took or made 3-pointers and he had a strongly negative pure point rating, which are two powerful indicators for a wing player, and his numbers in other areas were unimpressive, too. In particular, he was a bad free-throw shooter, which indicates that his outside shot might not ever be a strong suit.

Some scouts I have talked to have compared DeRozan to Rudy Gay (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3005) in terms of being an NBA athlete but having a questionable motor, but that comparison falls flat, according to the Draft Rater: Gay was the top-rated player in his draft class, while DeRozan is nowhere close. And while he's supposed to be a great athlete, he didn't show it on the court often enough: His rebound, block and steal totals were all very ordinary.

As I mentioned above, one-and-done players sometimes fool the system -- they're the youngest, least experienced guys in the pool, and, thus, a major factor is how much they improve post-draft rather than just how good they are pre-draft.

Nonetheless, I'd back away from DeRozan if the 12 relatively safe guys at the top of the Draft Rater are still on the board.

Speaking of which, let's take a look at the collegians for 2009.
Rankings: The Top 12

Stephen Curry graded out at 14.18 as a wing, but only 12.86 a point guard. Either way it puts him in the top dozen players, but by this rating he's a much better prospect if he's able to defend against wings.

The difference for Earl Clark was less dramatic, but he rated slightly better as a wing than as a big man (12.14), which would have dropped him from 12th to 15th.

A couple other names on here are likely to raise eyebrows:

Austin Daye may not have had a great season, but the Draft Rater looks favorably upon a 6-11 small forward who can shoot (assuming he can play the 3 in the NBA). His numbers were strongest in the categories that project best to the pros, including 42.9 percent on 3s and 2.1 blocks per game, which is why he moves all the way up to No. 4 on this list.

Nick Calathes is under contract in Greece but still will be draft-eligible, and he rates higher than the hot point guards most teams are discussing in the top 15. Though knocked for his athleticism, he had high rates of rebounds and steals and a strong 2-point shooting percentage. Teams in luxury tax trouble should look particularly hard at him since he can be stashed in Europe for a year or so.

Danny Green is the other surprise on this list. He's rated highly every year I've done this, so seeing him doesn't shock me anymore, but he's received little attention nationally. Still, he's a great shooter who can defend and he rates as the third-best wing after Daye and Tyreke Evans.
Rankings: 13 To 25

We're awash in point guards in this draft and the six of the top nine names in this section play the position. The lesson is this: If you're in the market for a point guard, one will fall to you and they're more or less the same after the first couple.

Down at No. 13, Holiday is a bit of a surprise -- given that he's projected to go higher -- but he has the two characteristics that produce the greatest error rate in the Draft Rater: he's a point guard and he's played only one year.

In other words, his real value might be much higher or much lower, and since the consensus is much higher, it wouldn't bother me to use a top-8 pick on him.

Delaney and Jackson are second-round sleepers at the point, but since projections for point guards are a bit more volatile, perhaps they shouldn't really be this high. The other "who's he?" on the list, Bryant, is a 6-11, 275-pound center from Santa Clara who could have a fine 10-year career as a third center in the Greg Kite (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3756)/Aaron Gray (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3207) mold.

The other big surprise down here is Jordan Hill, who could go as high as No. 4 but rates 26th in the Draft Rater. Hill had solid rebounding and scoring numbers, but his percentages weren't off the charts and his poor assist and turnover numbers were a red flag.

Though one might think that ball-handling categories wouldn't matter for a power forward, apparently they do -- pure point rating (a measure of how a player passes and handles the ball) is a pretty strong success indicator for frontcourt players, and only four prospects rated worse than Hill.

One of those players was Mullens, who was the absolute worst at -2.85. Everyone concedes he's a project, so perhaps it's not such a big surprise to see him down this low. But the Draft Rater is saying that maybe even the middle of the first round is too high to be taking the risk on him.

Pitt's Sam Young also graded out extremely poorly. He had the worst pure point rating of any wing player, and the other thing that hurt him is that he's one of the oldest prospects in the pool. How old? He's 19 days older than six-year vet Darko Milicic (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2171) and a full half-decade older than Jrue Holiday.

Interesting....now to see how this compares to the draft and then to the season. Keep it up!

Lance George

06-18-2009, 02:37 PM

I recall Hollinger doing something similar to this in the past and the results, while far from perfect, were more reliable than how the actual draft went down. Was it last year? Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

CableKC

06-18-2009, 02:43 PM

If there is a Player that breaks into the Top 10 that will knock some other prospect out...based off of many of the "glowing" workout reports that's been written about him.....I'm guessing it's going to be Lawson.

Some Team that is sick of playing for ping pong balls and is ready to start competing that needs a PG between the 5th to 10th spots is going to bypass a PG with high potential but isn't ready to contribute for Lawson.

cdash

06-18-2009, 02:44 PM

I recall Hollinger doing something similar to this in the past and the results, while far from perfect, were more reliable than how the actual draft went down. Was it last year? Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

Read the article, he addresses that. In short, last year was a rough year for the Draft Rater.

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 02:58 PM

While it's just one statistical analysis, it's making me feel a lot better about wanting Lawson. Bad news for Johnson though. I'm not really sure where the questionable work ethic thing is coming from for Lawson...anyone ever heard anything specific about that before? Or is that just pre-draft rumblings?

I'd still be surprised to see him go before us. It will be interesting for sure. Danny Green would be a steal in the 2nd round!

Lance George

06-18-2009, 03:04 PM

From 2002 to 2007, there were 15 players who were (a) among the first 10 collegians drafted and (b) excluded from the top 12 by the Draft Rater. In other words, these were the college players the Draft Rater thought were drafted too high. Of those 15, not one has played in an All-Star Game.

The only two who have started a significant number of games over the long term have been Kirk Hinrich (who was 13th in the Draft Rater in 2003) and Charlie Villanueva.

In other words, when the Draft Rater has suggested avoiding a player, that's turned out to be good advice.
And the Draft Rater has also spotted some of the biggest steals in recent years:

• Carlos Boozer was the 26th collegian taken in 2002; Draft Rater had him second.
• Josh Howard was 17th in 2003; Draft Rater had him fifth.
• Danny Granger was the 13th collegian in 2005; Draft Rater had him third.
• Rajon Rondo was the 16th collegian taken in 2006, but Draft Rater had him second.
• Rodney Stuckey was the 14th collegian chosen in 2007; Draft Rater had him fifth.
• And last year, two players the Draft Rater had rated much higher than others did, Mario Chalmers and George Hill, had productive rookie seasons.

So, most of the time, when the Draft Rater puts a player in the top five, there's a good reason.

This is very impressive. I'd say take the best available prospect at #13 (I prefer Blair) and then try and make a move to land Danny Green late in the 1st round. He's too complete a player to be any worse than a great backup GF.

blanket

06-18-2009, 03:09 PM

Does he make the complete list available?

I'd be interested in seeing the rankings for all players, particularly in considering players who might be available with our 2nd round pick.

d_c

06-18-2009, 03:34 PM

I recall Hollinger doing something similar to this in the past and the results, while far from perfect, were more reliable than how the actual draft went down. Was it last year? Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

Last season, he had Anthony Randolph rated as one of the worst prospects in the ENTIRE draft (not just the 1st round) based on his college numbers.

Of course Mr. StatHead never bothered to acknowledge this at the end of the season.
http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digging-deeper-for-a-comparison-to-warriors-rookie-anthony-randolph-yields-a-very-interesting-list/

Lance George

06-18-2009, 03:51 PM

Last season, he had Anthony Randolph rated as one of the worst prospects in the ENTIRE draft (not just the 1st round) based on his college numbers.

Of course Mr. StatHead never bothered to acknowledge this at the end of the season.
http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digging-deeper-for-a-comparison-to-warriors-rookie-anthony-randolph-yields-a-very-interesting-list/

Like I said, it's not perfect. He missed on Randolph and he'll miss on others in the future. So will GMs, likely at a higher rate than Hollinger's formula. Even if they break even, all that would show is that a proper statistical analysis is roughly as accurate as the "experts" evaluations. I'm not understanding your apparent vitriol towards Mr. StatHead.

Also regarding Randolph, or more specifically one-and-done freshman, Hollinger had this to say...

The one area where the method still appears to struggle is with one-and-done freshmen, and this speaks to a more general problem: Information is the key to making this thing work, and the more information we have, the better. For players who leave after their first year, the picture is often incomplete, whether we're using a statistical model or traditional scouting.

count55

06-18-2009, 03:52 PM

Last season, he had Anthony Randolph rated as one of the worst prospects in the ENTIRE draft (not just the 1st round) based on his college numbers.

Of course Mr. StatHead never bothered to acknowledge this at the end of the season.
http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digging-deeper-for-a-comparison-to-warriors-rookie-anthony-randolph-yields-a-very-interesting-list/

But he did in this very article:

Moreover, a number of those players played only one college season, and while the rater had an accurate view of a few (such as Kevin Love and Michael Beasley), it missed the boat on some who performed extremely well (including Derrick Rose to an extent, and O.J Mayo, Anthony Randolph and Eric Gordon).

d_c

06-18-2009, 04:01 PM

Like I said, it's not perfect. He missed on Randolph and he'll miss on others in the future. So will GMs, likely at a higher rate than Hollinger's formula. Even if they break even, all that would show is that a proper statistical analysis is roughly as accurate as the "experts" evaluations. I'm not understanding your apparent vitriol towards Mr. StatHead.

Also regarding Randolph, or more specifically one-and-done freshman, Hollinger had this to say...

The one area where the method still appears to struggle is with one-and-done freshmen, and this speaks to a more general problem: Information is the key to making this thing work, and the more information we have, the better. For players who leave after their first year, the picture is often incomplete, whether we're using a statistical model or traditional scouting.

Hollinger seemed pretty confident about his methods (even for 1 and done players) when he wrote this a year ago.

Yes, this is true. Seen in many quarters as a high lottery pick, Randolph has virtually nothing in his statistical record to justify such a lofty selection.

In particular, his woeful ball-handling numbers are a major red flag. Randolph had more turnovers than any prospect except Beasley and Thompson, but those two players had every play run through them; I'm still waiting to find out Randolph's excuse.

Additionally, his 49.9 true shooting percentage is alarmingly bad for a guy who is supposed to dominate athletically.

He can block shots, and the fact his team was such a mess probably didn't help his numbers any, but gambling on Randolph with a high first-round pick looks like the basketball equivalent of hitting on 19 in blackjack. Hey, maybe the dealer throws out a 2 and everyone thinks you're a genius, but chances are you're going to bust.

It appears he's going to be drafted in the middle of the first round at worst, but even that appears to be a terrible mistake -- there is no track record whatsoever of a player rated this poorly achieving pro success.

Since86

06-18-2009, 04:08 PM

Lord knows I'm not a Hollinger fan, but you're busting his nuts over one very bad mistake.

It doesn't pretend to know much about evaluating talent based on observations. He's a number cruncher, and tries to find formulas that work. There's always going to be those that don't fit. There's always going to be the surprise, or the bust. One player doesn't throw out the entire rating. It's a tool used to evaluate their potential, not the rule.

naptownmenace

06-18-2009, 04:26 PM

This has been extremely interesting to me because of Ty Lawson being ranked #1.

For a college PG, he had incredible productivity, better than any other college PG in this year's draft. I understand that's a huge contributing factor but I'm curious to know how he rates or compares to PGs drafted in the past 6 or 7 year sample of data that the Draft Rater used to come up with these rankings.

Will Galen

06-18-2009, 04:42 PM

Does he make the complete list available?

I'd be interested in seeing the rankings for all players, particularly in considering players who might be available with our 2nd round pick.

Complete list? This was the whole article. But there are way more than enough players to cover the second round. He rates 83 players.

blanket

06-18-2009, 04:55 PM

Complete list? This was the whole article. But there are way more than enough players to cover the second round. He rates 83 players.

He only lists 37 of the players. I'd like to see the full list of 83+ players. Do you see this and I don't?

Will Galen

06-18-2009, 05:00 PM

He only lists 37 of the players. I'd like to see the full list of 83+ players. Do you see this and I don't?

Sorry! I saw the 83 and didn't look any further. No, what's up above is the total list in the article.

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 05:25 PM

This has been extremely interesting to me because of Ty Lawson being ranked #1.

For a college PG, he had incredible productivity, better than any other college PG in this year's draft. I understand that's a huge contributing factor but I'm curious to know how he rates or compares to PGs drafted in the past 6 or 7 year sample of data that the Draft Rater used to come up with these rankings.

I compared his stats/measurements to CP3 just for comparison's sake, and he compared quite favorably. That obviously doesn't mean that he's the next Chris Paul, but it's encouraging anyway. He also had better A/TO and shooting %s, while being substantially stronger that TJ Ford out of college. If we can trade Ford I think Lawson may be our best pick.

Will Galen

06-18-2009, 05:48 PM

If we can trade Ford I think Lawson may be our best pick.

I agree with that, but why would someone trade for Ford and his $8.5 m contract when this draft is loaded with point guards.

purdue101

06-18-2009, 06:04 PM

Geez - this is the second recent article from a reputable source that has Lawson atop the PG crop. Draftexpress had him #1 in pure PG rating (his score was double that of anyone else).

I have been against Lawson in the past, but I'm really starting to warm up to him at #13. He is short, but his strength and weight is exceptional for the position.

I agree too that I think he could be our guy. Like Lawson - Danny, Rush, and Roy weren't all that hyped up before the draft - they all turned out terrific.

Also, I agree with you guys on trading TJ if we go PG (especially an NBA ready PG like Lawson). I like Danny Green and Hansborough in the mid/late 1st round.

OKC, Portland, Minnesota, and Dallas all need a PG, all have expirings to match up, and all have mid/late first rounders.

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 06:05 PM

I agree with that, but why would someone trade for Ford and his $8.5 m contract when this draft is loaded with point guards.

Perhaps a "win now" kind of team. You never know, trades are made all the time, but I agree that it may not be easy. But, a team like Washington, Miami, maybe Philly if they don't resign Andre... we'll just have to see what happens. TJ may be one of the best PGs available via trade. Kirk and Rafer are the other two I know of that could be available.

Could Portland be interested if they don't like how Blake has worked out? I know they have Bayless being "groomed" but they may be looking to capitalize or "accelerate" their progress this season. Sergio is rumored to be traded too. They're interested in Hedo but I'd guess he remains in Orlando. Maybe they look to upgrade the PG spot instead? IDK...

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 06:08 PM

Geez - this is the second recent article from a reputable source that has Lawson atop the PG crop. Draftexpress had him #1 in pure PG rating (his score was double that of anyone else).

I have been against Lawson in the past, but I'm really starting to warm up to him at #13. He is short, but his strength and weight is exceptional for the position.

I agree too that I think he could be our guy. Like Lawson - Danny, Rush, and Roy weren't all that hyped up before the draft - they all turned out terrific.

Also, I agree with you guys on trading TJ if we go PG (especially an NBA ready PG like Lawson). I like Danny Green and Hansborough in the mid/late 1st round.

OKC, Portland, Minnesota, and Dallas all need a PG, all have expirings to match up, and all have mid/late first rounders.

Haha you beat me to Portland. I think it's kind of funny too that the UNC guys could all be targets of ours. Hansbrough comes in tomorrow I believe.

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 06:13 PM

Portland has cap space to play with...so couldn't they send us someone they don't use like Webster (a backup 2/3 that could shoot and may fit in with JOB) and the rights to a pick for TJ Ford? Wouldn't that be a feasible deal for both sides? Or do you think we'd demand more for TJ?

Perhaps Count can help us out with how Portland's contract situation is and if they could absorb enough money to trade a decent backup for TJ's contract?

Given how much trouble LA had with Brooks, and how much trouble they had with Portland, wouldn't adding a player like Ford to the Blazers give the Lakers fits? He had 21 and 8 in his 1 game vs. the Lakers. Just a thought.

purdue101

06-18-2009, 06:26 PM

Portland has cap space to play with...so couldn't they send us someone they don't use like Webster (a backup 2/3 that could shoot and may fit in with JOB) and the rights to a pick for TJ Ford? Wouldn't that be a feasible deal for both sides? Or do you think we'd demand more for TJ?

Perhaps Count can help us out with how Portland's contract situation is and if they could absorb enough money to trade a decent backup for TJ's contract?

Given how much trouble LA had with Brooks, and how much trouble they had with Portland, wouldn't adding a player like Ford to the Blazers give the Lakers fits? He had 21 and 8 in his 1 game vs. the Lakers. Just a thought.

I believe you're correct - the salaries don't have to match up as they can absorb the difference due to their cap space.

Webster, Blake, and Outlaw all make about 4 a year - I would trade TJ for any of those three and Portland's first. TJ makes 8.5. We could use that difference to sign JJ and then take our team option on Quis. Quis as an expiring would have awesome value come next Feb.

Will Galen

06-18-2009, 06:47 PM

Portland has cap space to play with...so couldn't they send us someone they don't use like Webster (a backup 2/3 that could shoot and may fit in with JOB) and the rights to a pick for TJ Ford?

The problem with that is if we trade Ford it's because we can get someone in the draft, and Portland won't be under the cap until the new season starts.

One thing about regression that I can tell you from lots of stat experience, they all run the risk of training too hard to the training set, looking good when you test against that same set, and then failing horribly when applied to new data because they have specifically dialed in whatever quirks were in that training set.

For a typical AI program I would work on, you first split your data into training and testing and don't mix them. But often, as in this case, you don't have enough data to afford this luxury. So you are basically validating against your own training, the one thing the regression shouldn't fail.

Simple example - I train a visual inspection system to identify great art. All I have are 4 Da Vinci's. I then test it on the Mona Lisa and it is correctly spotted as great art. Then I use my own painting and it's shown as bad art.

Then I pull out a brilliant Picasso and the system says "fail". What did I do wrong? I trained it to find Da Vinci, not great art.

I admire the heck out of what Hollinger is trying to do for the NBA, I really do. But I also used to have a system that never missed on predicting the Best Picture Oscar, and I mean over 18 years of back testing. It even had the close races with closer scores. Then it missed 3 years in a row and I gave it up as a dud.

It knew my training set (the past winners) but what I put into it as key items and how it weighted those key items were both flawed overall. It went off in a new tangent because of this.

Naptown_Seth

06-18-2009, 07:11 PM

I do like that he has age as a consideration. I have to concede that some of what looks good about TWill and Sam Young, and AJ Price to an extent, is their mature awareness vs other college players. They know the game more, they handle the college game emotions better, but that doesn't mean they'll have that advantage at the next level. In fact you assume they will totally lose it among other very mature players with lots of pro experience.

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 08:22 PM

The problem with that is if we trade Ford it's because we can get someone in the draft, and Portland won't be under the cap until the new season starts.

I guess we could agree to a trade during the draft and do it later.

I could see us doing a deal with them since we now have a history and they're looking to be active, as always.

But, if they're not under the cap until next season, how could they be going after signing Hedo? Is "next season" July 1? Because if so, we could agree, but the trade wouldn't be official for a week. Excuse me for being too lazy to look it up and figure it out for myself... :) Anyone know for sure?

count55

06-18-2009, 08:31 PM

I could see us doing a deal with them since we now have a history and they're looking to be active, as always.

But, if they're not under the cap until next season, how could they be going after signing Hedo? Is "next season" July 1? Because if so, we could agree, but the trade wouldn't be official for a week. Excuse me for being too lazy to look it up and figure it out for myself... :) Anyone know for sure?

Yes, you can agree to a trade, and execute it at a later date. This is exactly what happened with both the Toronto and Portland trades last year. They were agreed to before/during the draft, but didn't become official until after July 9.

July 1, or a date shortly thereafter will mark "next season."

(I would guess Portland will not be signing Hedo. They probably don't have enough space under the cap, unless they cut Blake and/or Outlaw.

ESutt7

06-18-2009, 08:33 PM

Yes, you can agree to a trade, and execute it at a later date. This is exactly what happened with both the Toronto and Portland trades last year. They were agreed to before/during the draft, but didn't become official until after July 9.

July 1, or a date shortly thereafter will mark "next season."

(I would guess Portland will not be signing Hedo. They probably don't have enough space under the cap, unless they cut Blake and/or Outlaw.

So then, would a deal like TJ Ford for Outlaw or Webster and #24 (or a 2nd rounder since they have 4) work with the cap situation? Can they absorb that much? Thanks so much for being a cap expert!

count55

06-18-2009, 08:37 PM

So then, would a deal like TJ Ford for Outlaw or Webster and #24 (or a 2nd rounder since they have 4) work with the cap situation? Can they absorb that much? Thanks so much for being a cap expert!

Yes, that deal could work under the cap rules, but I'm not entirely sure they'd want to use their cap space that way.

(BTW...that deal would create a TE for the Pacers for between roughly $4-5mm.)

Again, I would not think Portland would be interested in such a deal, and if they were, I think we might be more interested in Blake (depending on who we draft).

Lance George

05-21-2010, 11:51 AM

Bump.

Interesting to see how Hollinger's rankings have held up a year in. Lawson, Evans and Curry all in the top-five looks great (and I suspect Griffin would as well), and Blair at seven looks good. His biggest miss seems to be Collison at #18.

Mourning

05-21-2010, 12:03 PM

Interesting catch, thx :).

thewholefnshow31

05-21-2010, 12:19 PM

Definately an intersting read given what we know now.

Reading the part about Lawson just makes me sad. I wanted Ty Lawson from the beginning. A trio of Hibbert/Lawson/Granger would have been amazing to watch.

I wonder what John Hollinger's Draft rater has to say about this years draft.

Placebo

05-21-2010, 02:01 PM

Definately an intersting read given what we know now.

Reading the part about Lawson just makes me sad. I wanted Ty Lawson from the beginning. A trio of Hibbert/Lawson/Granger would have been amazing to watch.

I wonder what John Hollinger's Draft rater has to say about this years draft.

There was a separate thread made for Hollinger's 2010 Draft Rater (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=53530).

Mourning

05-21-2010, 02:27 PM

WOW! Indeed!

Sookie

05-21-2010, 02:28 PM

I do like that he has age as a consideration. I have to concede that some of what looks good about TWill and Sam Young, and AJ Price to an extent, is their mature awareness vs other college players. They know the game more, they handle the college game emotions better, but that doesn't mean they'll have that advantage at the next level. In fact you assume they will totally lose it among other very mature players with lots of pro experience.

Something else to consider, there is no guarantee a player developes those "maturing" emotions.

We know TWill, Sam Young, and AJ Price have learned the game, understand the game and know how to play..and everything else that comes with experience.

All you have to do is look at Jerome Dyson and Stanley Robinson to realize that just because you are an upper classmen, it does not mean you actually have all the intangibles that come with being "experienced." There's only an advantage of being experienced if you are capable of developing those emotions.

Naptown_Seth

05-21-2010, 03:35 PM

Something else to consider, there is no guarantee a player developes those "maturing" emotions.

We know TWill, Sam Young, and AJ Price have learned the game, understand the game and know how to play..and everything else that comes with experience.

All you have to do is look at Jerome Dyson and Stanley Robinson to realize that just because you are an upper classmen, it does not mean you actually have all the intangibles that come with being "experienced." There's only an advantage of being experienced if you are capable of developing those emotions.
I totally agree about the "bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" when it comes to a player that has proven something, be it maturity, shooting, whatever.

I feel very good about promoting TWill, Young and Price as picks, certainly better than Hollinger's system suggested they would pan out.

In fact here's the ones I think he missed badly on.

Way too high, just silly. Lawson has panned out okay, but he's not only not better than Evans or Curry, he's not in the same ballpark so far.
1. Ty Lawson North Carolina 16.34
4. Austin Daye Gonzaga 14.24
6. Nick Calathes Florida 13.66
8. Danny Green North Carolina 13.28

Considered good at this spot, but I questioned his awareness, he was half the impact player TWill was for L'ville
12. Earl Clark Louisville 12.88

Teague was not ready and showed an immature game for a PG
14. Jeff Teague Wake Forest 12.50

This is a technicality one, not just because I like Henderson as a prospect but because so far we just don't know if this is a bust or a Larry Brown bust
15. Gerald Henderson Duke 12.17

Yikes...
16. Paul Delaney UAB 11.85
17. Aaron Jackson Duquesne 11.83

These guys lower than all those guys above? Collison I think comes back to earth in the long run, but still. At worst these guys are rated close to correct but well above the guys listed above them.
18. Darren Collison UCLA 11.80
19. Terrence Williams Louisville 11.80
21. Eric Maynor VCU 11.35

See Henderson, this is where I would rate Tyler and where he tracked, but at this point we just don't know
24. Tyler Hansbrough North Carolina 11.11

Good gravy
25. Wayne Ellington North Carolina 11.04

Epic fail, though apparently some GM's listen to Hollinger way too much. Annoys me because I rated them much higher so I don't think their ability was hidden or a surprise
31. Chase Budinger Arizona 10.51
52. Sam Young Pitt 9.34

This might actually be one of his better ratings, but it sure does stand out that he had a lottery guy rated this low. DeRozen has played and while not a star and not one a prospect I liked much, he's not "out of the NBA, late 2nd round" bad by any stretch.
54. DeMar DeRozan USC 9.26

No info on him yet, but he was deservedly IMO rated much higher than this. His injury has kept us from finding out yet.
68. Patrick Mills St. Mary's 8.36

So I'd say he was pretty off on about 30% of his ratings at least, and given that the mock drafts were probably in the same level of success and that my "I just watched them" amateur effort probably was too, I don't think he's anywhere close to finding the magic formula.

I agree with plenty of his rankings, last year and this, but I think he's probably got some huge misses in there too.

Patterson and Udoh wipe the floor with Tiny Gallon. Gallon did have one really great game and it came against Udoh, though Udoh also had a good game. But do you really want a 300 lb 6'9" kid who gets less than 1 block per game over a kid getting 3.7 blocks and 2.7 assists that's an inch taller and 60 pounds lighter?

Sookie, one thing we don't quite agree on is Robinson. I found his play to be pretty mature and I thought it was Dyson who caused the most immature havoc for UConn. Walker too, though he was far more reliable IMO.

Robinson's kinda got a Ron Artest offense to him, sometimes some iffy shots but not horrible, and the rest of the time he's really helping you. He often would take charge in games, step up his effort and try to get things going.

Dyson is explosive but he could really get out of control and keep the ball in his hands. They didn't really run good offense through Robinson except for when he'd set up an alley-oop with a good cut. Most of the time they'd go off the ranch even when he was trying to work a PnR with them to help out. IMO of course.

I think Robinson and Cousins are going to be the two biggest surprises in the area of "I thought they had issues". I think both are already showing plenty of maturity. Cousins as the season went along, Robinson all season.

Sookie

05-21-2010, 06:52 PM

Sookie, one thing we don't quite agree on is Robinson. I found his play to be pretty mature and I thought it was Dyson who caused the most immature havoc for UConn. Walker too, though he was far more reliable IMO.

Robinson's kinda got a Ron Artest offense to him, sometimes some iffy shots but not horrible, and the rest of the time he's really helping you. He often would take charge in games, step up his effort and try to get things going.

Dyson is explosive but he could really get out of control and keep the ball in his hands. They didn't really run good offense through Robinson except for when he'd set up an alley-oop with a good cut. Most of the time they'd go off the ranch even when he was trying to work a PnR with them to help out. IMO of course.

I think Robinson and Cousins are going to be the two biggest surprises in the area of "I thought they had issues". I think both are already showing plenty of maturity. Cousins as the season went along, Robinson all season.

Stanley is a really good kid, and as some people say "you're kind of heartless if you don't root for him."

Well, I root for him..but I'm also realistic.

4 years in the program, and his senior season he was still asking Gavin Edwards (the kid who played 10 mpg his entire career until his senior season) where he was supposed to be on offense..and who he was supposed to cover on defense. (I'm sure part of that was his first three years AJ was literally pointing out where he needed to go almost every posession.) We didn't run any plays for him because that would involve him knowing the plays. (and let's be honest, it's not like Calhoun's plays are complicated)

Problem with Robinson is he is SO athletic, that everyonce in a while, he makes a few moves that make you go "WOW" once or twice a game. And that's nice, but flash annoys me when there's a lack of substance.

I will say though, in Robinson's defense, He was fantastic during Uconn's Final Four run, and had a tendency to play better with Dyson off the floor. But he always played like a lower classmen..a freshman..And perhaps he's better suited for the pro game. However, my prediction for Robinson is this: Whichever team is suckered into picking him, he'll show a few brilliant things throughout the course of the year. Probably carry a team to a win or two..fans excited. But he'll also have moments where he disappears. He'll do the same year two and year three..fans grow restless but still think "The kid has a ton of potential.." and he'll do the same year four and year five...because that's what Stanley is..a kid with amazing athleticism and a bit of basketball talent..but mentally, well..let's just put it this way..if people think Rush is inconsistent...

Dyson, honestly he's a ball dominant shooting guard that can't shoot. He lived off of driving to the basket, except he wasn't all that confident in his knee, and Uconn didn't have any shooters. He's not a leader. He had potential defensively..but he had poor fundamentals (in fact, at the end of the day, that was both Dyson and Stick's problem..poor fundamentals overall) and his senior season, when he'd attempt to go for the steal and his man would drive past him, there was no Thabeet to block the incoming shot.

It was actually funny, I thought Price did a lot for that team, but I had no idea. There were three players (Craig Austrie, Thabeet, and Gavin Edwards..two of which left, and one..career bench player) who didn't depend on AJ to: get them mentally involved in the game, get them physically involved in games, tell them where they need to be on offense, tell them where they need to be on defense, bail them out of tight spots in games, pump everyone up, calm everyone down, tie their shoes for them ect.. (he wasn't a point guard, he was a freaking babysitter.)

So moral of the story, I hope the Pacer's aren't the suckers who end up with Robinson or Dyson (not that I think he'll make it in the league) Having Gavin Edwards for Summer league would be fine, he'll know the plays, try hard, won't make mistakes, and won't hog the ball. (also won't make the team..) I say that knowing I could be wrong with Robinson..but really, I doubt it. He's talanted, he just doesn't have "it" mentally.